They could release the source with a licence that restricted commercial use, anything they wanted, that still allowed them to profit.
Instead we get "AI is too dangerous for anyone else to have." The whole thing doesn't inspire confidence.
"We" got a free-as-in-beer general knowledge chat system leagues better than anything at the time, suitable for most low-impact general knowledge and creative work (easily operable by non-technical users), a ridiculously cheap api for it, and the papers detailing how to replicate it.
The same SOTA with image generation, just hosted by Microsoft/Bing.
Like, not to defend OpenAI, but if the goal was improving the state of general AI, they've done a hell of a lot - much of which your average tech-literate person would not have believed was even possible. Not single-handedly, obviously, but they were major contributors to almost all of the current SOTA. The only thing they haven't done is release the weights, and I feel like everything else they've done has been lost in the discussion, here.
Not at all. With GPT-3 they only released a paper roughly describing it but in no way it allowed replication (and obviously no source code, nor the actual NN model, with or without weights).
GPT-4 was even worse since they didn't even release a paper, just a "system card" that amounted to describing that its outputs were good.
Where can I go get or drink from my free as in beer chat system from them then?
(No, having to create an account does not mean it's "not free")
The Sherman Fairchild Foundation (which manages the post-humous funds of the guy who made Fairchild Semiconductor) pays its president $500k+ and chairman about the same. https://beta.candid.org/profile/6906786?keyword=Sherman+fair... (Click Form 990 and select a form)
I do love IRS Form 990 in this way. It sheds a lot of light into this.
Put another way, a $1bn hedge fund is considered a small boutique that typically only employs a handful of people.
Nobody in the hedge fund world works for salary.
They work for bonuses. Which for $1bn fund should be another $20m or so (20% profit share of 10% returns), otherwise you suck.
If bonuses aren’t available in non-profits, the base salaries should be much higher.
I remember one org had so many money pipes going in/out of it that I had to modify my code to make a special case for them.
There's this weird thing where charities are judged by how much they cost to run and pay their employees to even a greater degree than other organizations, and even by people who would resist that strategy for businesses. It's easy to imagine a good leader executing the mission way more than 500k better than a meh one, and even more dramatically so for 'overhead' in general (as though a nonprofit would consistently be doing their job better by cutting down staffing for vetting grants or improving shipping logistics or whatever).
It give empty promise.
> In 2003 the Internal Revenue Service revoked VSP's tax exempt status citing exclusionary, members-only practices, and high compensation to executives.[3]
Or later in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSP_Vision_Care#Non-profit_sta...
> In 2005, a federal district judge in Sacramento, California found that VSP failed to prove that it was not organized for profit nor for the promotion of the greater social welfare, as is required of a 501(c)(4). Instead, the district court found, VSP operates much like a for-profit (with, for example, its executives getting bonuses tied to net income) and primarily for the benefit of its own member/subscribers, not for some greater social good and, thereafter, concluded it was not entitled to tax-exempt status under 501(c)(4).[16]
"In conversations with recruiters we’ve heard from some candidates that OpenAI is communicating that they don’t expect to turn a profit until they reach their mission of Artificial General Intelligence" https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html
IMO you could cut the CEOs salary from 6 million to 300k and get a new CEO - and we probably wouldnt see any difference in Firefox results. Perhaps improvement even. Since the poorly paid CEO would try to demonstrate value - and this best is done by bringing back firefox market share.
The median annual wage in 2021 in the US was $45,760,
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/economy/jobs-and-income/job...
Just to put bit of perspective...